Comments on: Atheist bus ad campaigns stalling in Germanyhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/20/atheist-bus-ad-campaigns-stalling-in-germany/
Religion, faith and ethicsTue, 31 Mar 2015 08:06:28 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.3By: tomheneghanhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/20/atheist-bus-ad-campaigns-stalling-in-germany/comment-page-1/#comment-23569
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:10:23 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=4869#comment-23569Dear Schilling (Georg, I presume?)– anyone who can ask such a wonderful question must be able to read between the lines and see why I like covering these topics!

“a. Does probability *border on* certainty?
b. If this were the case: would, from a logical perspective, vice versa, not also certainty have to border on probability? (!)”

The fact that this question can also be applied to AAA-bonds makes this a very Reuter-ish issue. Maybe the traders who subscribe to our financial services needed a bit more training in philosophy rather than economic engineering.:-)

a. Does probability *border on* certainty?
b. If this were the case: would, from a logical perspective, vice versa, not also certainty have to border on probability? (!)
c. Is the whole phrase of a (so called) “probability bordering on (!) certainty” a serious and scientific one?

What about works, in this field, who cast (serious, scientific) doubt on whether probability borders on certainty?

Furthermore: it does not have to be forgotten that this (exact: these two (!)) sentences (“Es gibt …/Es gibt mit an Sicherheit grenzender …”) are two *statements*
(in the sense of “Behauptungen”)…

Generally speaking: Everyone can state everything.
But how are such sentences to be falsified? What is the way of doing so?

Again: To make statements and position them in public:
that is one aspect of the actual campaign: scientific???

e. Furthermore: what about several (!) works of e.g. Georg Schilling (one title e.g.: “Die so genannte ‘an Sicherheit grenzende Wahrscheinlichkeit”; or “Die “Triple A”-Ratingsymbole und die “an Sicherheit grenzende Wahrscheinlichkeit”?, Grin publishers, 2009) which cast (serious, fact-bound, down-to earth) doubt on what is – even in the field of so called ‘AAA’-rated bonds – referred to as a (so called) ‘probability bordering on certainty’? What about these scientific texts?

“There is (almost certainly) no God.” It’s interesting that they add that qualifier, which literally translates as “with a probability bordering on certainty.”

that

Could it be they’re not that convinced after all?

The “probably” is crucial to distinguish a methodology based on reason, science, skepticism and open inquiry from one closed down by faith and dogma. That is why we chose to use the word in our Canadian campaign.

]]>By: Greg Vande Krolhttp://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/20/atheist-bus-ad-campaigns-stalling-in-germany/comment-page-1/#comment-11386
Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:41:27 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=4869#comment-11386It’s interesting that the author tries to belittle the slogan for not insisting that there is absolutely no chance that God exists. I think that is a key crime of those who employ faith: they lie about the extent of their knowledge. How often have you heard a preacher or any believer say, “there is a possibility that we are wrong. It could be that this was all made up by men. Perhaps God does not really exist”?

Atheists (and most everyone else) can be convinced that something is true, without claiming that there is no possibility that we are wrong.

But for a believer to be honest about the certainty of their “knowledge” would often make them feel like they are doing something wrong. Why do you think that is? Group pressure to keep the faith? Why can’t believers be honest with us, with themselves, with children?